UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7573



ALAN C. DEBNAM,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South
Carolina,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3424-20-BH)


Submitted: January 15, 2004                 Decided:   January 28, 2004


Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alan C. Debnam, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Alan C. Debnam seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice

of appeal was not timely filed.

           Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).    This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 

, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 

,

229 (1960)).

           The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

August 20, 2003.   The notice of appeal was filed on September 22,

2003.*   Because Debnam failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are




     *
      For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 

(1988).

                               - 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.



                                                         DISMISSED




                              - 3 -